I’m denying that you can speculate about some extradimensional box, but you cannot ‘see’ it. — I like sushi
Yep. — Isaac
I’m denying that you can speculate about some extradimensional box, but you cannot ‘see’ it.
— I like sushi
Exactly, so where's my role in this phenomenal investigation? You say "let's just investigate what it is we actually experience, let's use that as our measure...", I say "I experience a feeling of being able to imagine such a box", and your immediate response is "no you can't!". — Isaac
So your wife and kid are just creations of your mind in your view.
Did you tell your wife and kid mind-creations this? — Terrapin Station
I'm sure you're aware the we completely alter our actual cellular make up, so I presume you're not associating other people with their material matter. — Isaac
We do generally act in the natural mode of being — I like sushi
Sorry, typo. I’m NOT denying ... — I like sushi
removing the ‘shape’ of a table being impossible if we wish the table to be concrete object of experience, yet we can remove a leg and the table remains a table. — I like sushi
You don't even think there is an object that's another person. So what are you asking about? — Terrapin Station
I'm asking about the placeholders in my model, the same model I presume you have since were both human beings — Isaac
You can't presume there's another human being if there's no object that's another person.
There can be no object that's Eric Corchesne, no objects that are six-month old babies, etc. on your view. — Terrapin Station
Is there something about this multiple model idea you're not understanding? — Isaac
If you were answering from the perspective of models earlier, and you have a model where there are other people as objects, etc., then why did you answer only from the model where there aren't other people as objects? — Terrapin Station
Everything I think is some model or other of the reality I'm thinking about, so there is no question that I can answer outside of some model or other. — Isaac
You're not just observing models are you? — Terrapin Station
but observing is a model-mediated process. I don't 'observe' without modelling. — Isaac
How would we be able to know this without knowing what the world is like sans modeling for comparison? — Terrapin Station
If two people give differing, contradictory accounts of some state of affairs, it seems reasonable to assume neither necessarily has clear access to the state of affairs both are trying to describe. — Isaac
A few things perhaps unrelated to each other...
1. Obviously we'd be talking about a situation where we're comparing two participants both in A's place, just at different times, experimentsttry to eliminate variables so, place is a really obvious one to start with.
So to follow through you'd have to say that at t1, when A is there, was different (had different properties?) from @ at t2, when B is there. — Isaac
But if this is the case then we cannot say anything at all about because all we know about it is what it was like at t1. — Isaac
The jump from the situation of two observers to say "we can just talk about A and B as locations, without people. The same thing would be the case." is unjustified. — Isaac
The table seeming to be some way is an activity of the observer. — Isaac
We still haven't escaped the fact that we do not access light waves — Isaac
We are only aware of visual representations after they've been presented from the occipital cortex, they've already been subject to modulation from backward acting neural connections, and filtered through architecture built by prior experience. — Isaac
What are the properties of a Kaniza square? — Isaac
Saying what is like at T1 (and L1 (location 1)) is knowing something about (and saying something about) @. — Terrapin Station
You'd have to support that claim. — Terrapin Station
The notion of optical illusions is incoherent if we don't know what's really there contra the illusion. — Terrapin Station
T1 is an infinitesimally small point, so I don't see how it can coherently have any data attached to it. — Isaac
I didn't ask about the notion of optical illusions though did I? I asked what the properties of the square you see there really are. — Isaac
The justification that we do not directly observe light waves are the numerous optical illusions where what we are convinced we observe are actually retinal negatives, polarisation, inferred colour in the peripheral region (which can't even detect EM wavelengths) and downright hallucinations. — Isaac
That mathematical view of time is just an abstraction. — Terrapin Station
T1 is the changes or motion that are/is happening from some frame of reference (as opposed to the changes or motion that happened or the changes or motion that's yet to happen). So it's not an "infinitesimally small point" from most reference frames. — Terrapin Station
Yes, you did--that's a well-known optical illusion and you're asking about it. — Terrapin Station
...and this isn't an abstraction? — Isaac
I'm struggling to see any more depth to your argument — Isaac
No, I specifically asked you about the square you see, not the optical illusion as a whole. I want to know what the objective properties of that square are and in what they obtain. — Isaac
I'm simply explaining. — Terrapin Station
I'm struggling to see any more depth to your argument than "things are not the way you think they are, they're the way I think they are". — Isaac
Obviously there isn't a square. — Terrapin Station
What happened to addressing what I said about optical illusions and fallibility? This is the second time I'm asking you. — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.